Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k

[jacobolus]

I'm against improper use of  Gimmicks  to sell people on something that does not have tangible benefits..

You’re so right. There is no tangible benefit here. I mean, who cares that when I have two displays open side by side (only 30" from my face, oh no!) with the same content on them, right now, one of them looks amazingly better than the other one. Shockingly better. That’s just a marketing trick. The marketing team at Dell is right now as we speak reaching into my brain and implanting that better view, just so I can “coerce” other people on the internet to buy their product.

Those guys are damn sneaky!

[tp4tissue]

I'm against improper use of  Gimmicks  to sell people on something that does not have tangible benefits..

You’re so right. There is no tangible benefit here. I mean, who cares that when I have two displays open side by side with the same content on them, right now, one of them looks amazingly better than the other one. Shockingly better. That’s just a marketing trick. The marketing team at Dell is right now as we speak reaching into my brain and implanting that better view, just so I can “coerce” other people on the internet to buy their product.

Those guys are damn sneaky!

You are not making a valid comparison..

Are both calibrated to the same contrast and gamma point...

Are they both exactly the same size..

Do they have the same color bezels

Are they sitting at different heights..

Are they facing you at precisely the same angle



You probably did not consider ANY of that before making the statement,  "This is better"..


What you're riding out right now is an Emotionally charged response to having BOUGHT something..


The sneaky person here is your mental disposition..   oneself who needs to affirm his most recent purchase..




If you have something that goes against the "Science"..  that is reason...  What you've put forth THus far is child-like whimsy and excitement over a new bike..


You should enjoy it yes.. Do so.. ..   but let it not corrupt your logic...

[jacobolus]

You are not making a valid comparison..

Are both calibrated to the same contrast and gamma point...
Are they both exactly the same size..
Do they have the same color bezels
Are they sitting at different heights..
Are they facing you at precisely the same angle

Yes. (Also set to very similar color gamut, though with different settings the new display can get more colorful if I want it to.)
Yes (well, one is 16:10 shape and slightly taller; they’re about exactly the same width).
Yes (black plastic).
No.
Yes (both with the displays perpendicular to my face at the center point).

The difference is not the color, contrast, brightness, screen reflectance, or angle. A black-to-white gradient looks basically identical on each, as does a big patch of any particular solid color.

The difference between them is that one is double the resolution in each dimension, and it looks very much sharper. On the 1920x1200 display, even if I scoot back to 40" away, pretty much everything now looks blurry, like I’m looking through a glass plate smeared with vaseline. On the 3840x2160 display, I can still barely make out separate pixels at 36" away, but even if I lean in close everything looks pretty crisp.

You probably did not consider ANY of that before making the statement,  "This is better"..

You lose. What now?

[For what it’s worth, I’ve spent a great deal of time in the last ~8 years studying human color vision. There’s a shelf full of vision science, color reproduction, and technical photography books behind me right now. I have normal color vision (can score ~0 every time on the Farnsworth–Munsell 100 hue test), and my visual acuity is a bit better than 20/15, maybe 20/12 or even 20/10 (though I’m left eye dominant and I think my right eye is a bit worse than 20/15)? Better than 20/15 vision is actually quite normal among healthy young people. (Sadly however I’ve never been able to fool my eyes into focusing beyond the paper to see one of those magic eye puzzles.) I’m not stupid, and I’m not lying. The display is actually obviously different. It’s not a trick.]

[byker]

For $300, I cannot think of a better deal then a 27inch 1440 monitor that can be OC'd to approx 90fps at least. Compared to my old 27inch 1200p monitor it is miles ahead. Even the 30fps extra makes a nice difference in reaction-time games. This stuff isn't a gimmick..

[jacobolus]

One last follow-up here. Let’s run the numbers.

For someone with below-average (for a healthy young person) but still roughly normal vision (i.e. 20/20 vision), the fovea can resolve, in medium to bright surroundings, about 30 cycles per degree. For someone with sharp vision (20/12), the fovea can resolve more like 50 cycles per degree.

So for the person with 20/20 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
286 ppi at 12 inches
143 ppi at 24 inches
95 ppi at 36 inches

For the person with 20/12 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
477 ppi at 12 inches
239 ppi at 24 inches
159 ppi at 36 inches

So for the person with 20/12 or 20/15 vision, they have to put the old 24" 1920x1200 95 ppi display at least 50–60" away before they stop being able to resolve individual pixels. By contrast, the new display is completely sharp at any distance further than about 25–30" away. (And in practice, still looks very good even at a distance of about 18", when you want to lean in and see little fine details.)

These choices end up basically the same for the person with sharp vision:
24" 4k display at 30" away
32" 4k display at 39" away
four 30" 1080p displays in a grid at 75" away

I know which one takes up less space on my desk.

[tp4tissue]

One last follow-up here. Let’s run the numbers.

For someone with below-average (for a healthy young person) but still roughly normal vision (i.e. 20/20 vision), the fovea can resolve, in medium to bright surroundings, about 30 cycles per degree. For someone with sharp vision (20/12), the fovea can resolve more like 50 cycles per degree.

So for the person with 20/20 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
286 ppi at 12 inches
143 ppi at 24 inches
95 ppi at 36 inches

For the person with 20/12 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
477 ppi at 12 inches
239 ppi at 24 inches
159 ppi at 36 inches

So for the person with 20/12 or 20/15 vision, they have to put the old 24" 1920x1200 95 ppi display at least 50–60" away before they stop being able to resolve individual pixels. By contrast, the new display is completely sharp at any distance further than about 25–30" away. (And in practice, still looks very good even at a distance of about 18", when you want to lean in and see little fine details.)

you fundamentally misunderstand the use of those numbers..


Just because you CAN resolve a certain ppi,  doesn't mean it's at all comfortable to do so ,, regardless of how good your vision is..

[jacobolus]

you fundamentally misunderstand the use of those numbers..

Just because you CAN resolve a certain ppi,  doesn't mean it's at all comfortable to do so ,, regardless of how good your vision is..

You’re right, sharp images are not comfortable. Youch, you might cut yourself! Better to just keep everything a bit fuzzy. And oh, you can’t read the fuzzy letters without squinting? Too bad!

[abdulmuhsee]

I can't even imagine sitting in front of a 27"+ monitor.  I have a 23" and can just barely see the entire monitor in my field of vision.  I would have to sit much further away in order to use a monitor that big, and at that point, I may as well be using my television.

[jacobolus]

I’ve been looking up sources about optimal viewing distances for reading and/or computer work. Here’s what the Canadian center for Occupational Safety and Health says:

The viewing range 40 cm to 70 cm (about 15 - 27 in.) provides visual comfort for majority of computer users. In the situation where the recommended viewing distance is too great for the operator to see images clearly it is better to increase the font size (images) than to force a shorter viewing distance.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html

I’m curious to see a reputable source which recommends >36", and discourages people from using displays closer than that.

[tp4tissue]

I’ve been looking up sources about optimal viewing distances for reading and/or computer work. Here’s what the Canadian center for Occupational Safety and Health says:

The viewing range 40 cm to 70 cm (about 15 - 27 in.) provides visual comfort for majority of computer users. In the situation where the recommended viewing distance is too great for the operator to see images clearly it is better to increase the font size (images) than to force a shorter viewing distance.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html

I’m curious to see a reputable source which recommends >36", and discourages people from using displays closer than that.

No sources exists.

I am that source..

Because  Intense computer use is a very NEW phenomenon.... as is the affordability of these Super Large screens..

Only within the past 5 years has the Price of Big TVs fell towards only 2-300 dollars.


How could they have possibly recommended that to people only a few years back.. when it would cost most people $1000-3000 to get such a monitor..

They couldn't possibly do that kind of research


That is to say.. TP4 is the forefront of Visual Ergonomics.. YET AGAIN something I'm super awesome @,


you're welcome internet..


The science based on what we KNOW about  Muscle fatigue...   the MUSCLES IN YOUR EYE  are at rest @ 35 + inches..



Look up resting point of accommodation, and resting point of vergence..   

Stop looking for credible information to support your non existent argument..  or to affirm your mistake of purchase..

You're trapped in a tiny well,  and it has narrowed your focus..  TP4 is trying his best to pull you out.

[jacobolus]

No sources exists. I am that source..

No comment.

[tp4tissue]

No sources exists. I am that source..

No comment.

Trust me Jacobolus..

You have witnessed history..  the first person to PUT it all together in the Digital Domain.. the first person to Do it Right, and tell it..

That is I..

[Input Nirvana]

Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.

[tp4tissue]

And one more thing on your misuse of acuity..

ONLY the DEAD CENTER of your eye has the acuity to resolve "retina" ppi

if you deviate from foveal vision by even 5 degrees,  your acuity drops by HALF.. (a very small cone)


Which means even if you CAN tiny sharp detailed text DEAD CENTER,  the left and right of that text is actually HARDER TO SEE..

So your vision becomes tunnel-vision..

Which is why having really small text appear on High PPI monitors, is uncomfortable and difficult to see overall..

[jacobolus]

ONLY the DEAD CENTER of your eye has the acuity to resolve "retina" ppi

if you deviate from foveal vision by even 5 degrees,  your acuity drops by HALF.. (a very small cone)

The way you look at stuff, if you’re a typical human, is by moving your eye around, hopping very rapidly from one spot to another and then fixating briefly on that spot. These movements are called saccades. The part of your eye you use to look at details is the very central part of your retina, the fovea. When you read text, for example, you fixate on a word (or a part of a word, or a couple of words) at a time, using your fovea. Or when you look around the room, or examine a painting, or whatever, you use your foveal vision to figure out fine details and textures &c. For the rest of the scene, you get a pretty blurry sloppy picture, and then your brain just remembers what was there and fills it in, so you don’t consciously notice how blurry everything is all the time.

As you say, visual acuity drops dramatically as you get away from the center of the retina, and peripheral vision is pretty blurry overall. But that’s kind of irrelevant to a computer display, since you don’t examine your computer screen using peripheral vision.

Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

Well, I’ve had this display for all of a day, so I can’t tell you what I’d feel about it in a few weeks. However, Having used a 13" Macbook Pro laptop with a 2560 x 1600 pixel screen (227 ppi), I find other laptop displays (or standard 1999–2012-resolution desktop displays) extremely blocky/blurry looking in comparison. It’s a very noticeable difference.

I think it makes a very nice difference for text. Text on my laptop screen, or on this new 24" 4k display, approaches the quality of text printed in books or magazines.

[Altis]

Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.

I'm not Jacobolous, but I was at Canada Computers last night looking at the Dell U2713HM that I'd like to pick up.

While I was there, I had the chance to play with a 28" 4K monitor (to be honest, I don't remember which one), although I do remember it was in the $550 ish range. Either the Samsung U28D590D or AOC U2868PQU.

Holy smokes, the difference is very noticeable. Small text seemed to benefit the most of everything, and the 4K content that they had preloaded on the system looked incredible (including some 4K Timelapse videos).. it was a little mesmorizing. I loaded up a few of the store's own product pages and set them side by side... it was very crisp to read and look at.

The difference is about the same as the Apple products going from standard to "Retina" displays. It's very enticing, and somewhat difficult to go back.

Now, these TN panels didn't have the other picture qualities that the IPS 1440 displays had, and some of the scaling seemed a little off to me... but 4K for less than the Dell U2713HM is certainly a good direction to be heading in.

I'll probably still stick with the Dell as I don't really want to worry about scaling, electricity, GPU power, and TN display qualities, but it sure made me look forward to the future of display technologies.

Just my $0.02 worth of course, but having now used a 4K monitor, I can definitely see the appeal and benefit.

Now I just have to pick a monitor to buy... 


Edit: Included the possible 4K models.

[Input Nirvana]

Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.

I'm not Jacobolous, but I was at Canada Computers last night looking at the Dell U2713HM that I'd like to pick up.

While I was there, I had the chance to play with a 28" 4K monitor (to be honest, I don't remember which one), although I do remember it was in the $550 ish range. Either the Samsung U28D590D or Asus U2868PQU.

Holy smokes, the difference is very noticeable. Small text seemed to benefit the most of everything, and the 4K content that they had preloaded on the system looked incredible (including some 4K Timelapse videos).. it was a little mesmorizing. I loaded up a few of the store's own product pages and set them side by side... it was very crisp to read and look at.

The difference is about the same as the Apple products going from standard to "Retina" displays. It's very enticing, and somewhat difficult to go back.

Now, these TN panels didn't have the other picture qualities that the IPS 1440 displays had, and some of the scaling seemed a little off to me... but 4K for less than the Dell U2713HM is certainly a good direction to be heading in.

I'll probably still stick with the Dell as I don't really want to worry about scaling, electricity, GPU power, and TN display qualities, but it sure made me look forward to the future of display technologies.

Just my $0.02 worth of course, but having now used a 4K monitor, I can definitely see the appeal and benefit.

Now I just have to pick a monitor to buy... 

Thanks for that.
Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.

Thanks

[jacobolus]

Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.

The 24" Dell is ~$700–750 depending where you look. Here’s Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HALPPM0

The upcoming 27" “5k” Dell display is even slightly higher pixel density and should be very sweet, but is going to be tough for all but the fastest graphics cards to handle at the moment, and is going to be pretty expensive ($2500) at launch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

Hopefully within a few years, graphics card performance will be better, Displayport/HDMI/etc. buses will have better bandwidth, and the price on full sized ~200+ ppi displays will keep dropping.

[tp4tissue]

You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250... 

[Altis]

Thanks for that.
Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.

Thanks

The cost isn't just the monitor, but having a graphics card to handle it and the extra electricity that it would use (if that is of concern).

My only issue with it is that the TN panel still doesn't look as nice as IPS. So while you gain incredible resolution, the overall picture is better in some ways and worse in others. This assumes you are used to an IPS display (which I am not).

I should clarify that while it's similar to going from non-Retina to Retina, Retina displays were IPS while the standard were TN. So they benefit from both two-fold pixel density and moving from TN to IPS.

With these monitors, you're gaining two-fold resolution but moving from IPS to TN, which is a downgrade (if you're used to an IPS display).

I hope this has been somewhat helpful.

[tp4tissue]

You guys are just making **** up now.. the graphics card will be the difference of 5-10 watts to produce desktop resolutions between 1080p and 4k.

and even for gaming..  you'd have to gaming quite  a bit for electrical cost to make much difference..  because even powerful gpus these days will idle within 50watts.

[Input Nirvana]

Personally, I'm a 24",27/28", 30" guy. May settle on a multi-combination or whatever. I don't need to go 4K today with crazy graphics cards...I'm in the Apple ecosystem and won't be purchasing a Mac Pro. I'm just trying to compile some well informed real world info from peeps I have a feel for and that will help me sort through a sea-of-stuff.

I'd be interested in comparing a couple 24" side by side with text.

[Altis]

You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250...

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with the principle. I do think that having sharper, more accurate text (at the same given size*), would be a little less fatiguing, but you're right that 24" is already pretty crisp at 1080p (and IPS may benefit more than 4K).

35" seems pretty far from a 24" monitor, though. I have a 23" and I'd say I'm probably around 25" from the screen to comfortably see things (at 1080p).

I'm far more concerned with overworking my eyes trying to see text as well as the brightness. Having all-white screens and web pages everywhere will forever be the thing that destroys my vision.

Sidenote: I finally got ChangeColors working again in Chrome, and am so very glad. I can literally feel my eyes relax when I enable it.

[tp4tissue]

You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250...

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with the principle. I do think that having sharper, more accurate text (at the same given size*), would be a little less fatiguing, but you're right that 24" is already pretty crisp at 1080p (and IPS may benefit more than 4K).

35" seems pretty far from a 24" monitor, though. I have a 23" and I'd say I'm probably around 25" from the screen to comfortably see things (at 1080p).

I'm far more concerned with overworking my eyes trying to see text as well as the brightness. Having all-white screens and web pages everywhere will forever be the thing that destroys my vision.

Sidenote: I finally got ChangeColors working again in Chrome, and am so very glad. I can literally feel my eyes relax when I enable it.

that's the issue, 35"  is the Minimum viewing distance to reduce eye fatigue as the result of accommodation and vergence..


24"  is  so 2007...   this is 2014...   


I should probably add,   at any distances GREATER than 35" there is no noticeable reduction in fatigue, because the eye muscles (that can be at rest) are already at rest.

[jacobolus]

People have been doing their work looking at stuff held in their hands at distances of <36" forever. They’ve been reading and writing books, scrolls, clay tablets, etc. for at least 3000 years. They’ve been looking at maps, engineering diagrams, paintings, and all sorts of other stuff for nearly as long.

Yes, it takes some amount of work for your eye muscles to focus on things that are close. Yes, the closer you focus, the more your muscles need to contract. No, I wouldn’t recommend staring at a single spot 12 inches from your face for 2 hours without moving your eyes at all. But if you look around the room from time to time, giving your eye muscles a chance to relax and reset, you’re going to be just fine looking at a computer display 2–2.5 feet from your face, or even looking at your smartphone screen at 18". (I recommend putting a window with a nice view somewhere nearby; unfortunately this isn’t always possible.)

The “resting state” for vergence and/or accommodation just tells you what your eyes do if you’re not looking at anything in particular. (For instance, when you’re in the middle of fog or it’s pitch black). There’s great variation from one person to another in the resting state of the eyes. Just because your eyes naturally return to some particular focus when you aren’t focusing on anything doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at things that are closer.

If your eyes feel tired, or you start getting headaches, or you have trouble focusing close, or whatever, by all means move your screen to whatever distance improves your symptoms. But this thing about requiring a screen >36" from your face seems like bunk to me.

Some more useful advice:
- Make sure you blink enough. People who look at computer screens a lot tend to blink less than they would otherwise, and can get dry irritated eyes.
- Don’t make your screen too dim. Our eyes work much better when looking at bright stuff.
- Make sure your screen is positioned well, so you don’t stress your neck out.
- Don’t use your computer/smartphone/etc. too close to bedtime, or otherwise use too much lighting late at night. It’ll screw up your circadian rhythms.
- Get enough sleep. Sleep is really important for most parts of the body, restoring your brain, your immune system, your skin, etc., but it’s also important for eye health. People who are sleep deprived often suffer chronic eye irritation.
- Eat a healthy variety of food, to make sure you get the nutrients your eyes need.

[Altis]

that's the issue, 35"  is the Minimum viewing distance to reduce eye fatigue as the result of accommodation and vergence..


24"  is  so 2007...   this is 2014...   


I should probably add,   at any distances GREATER than 35" there is no noticeable reduction in fatigue, because the eye muscles (that can be at rest) are already at rest.

It's a good point, and certainly something to be conscious of. You need to balance content size so that you aren't straining to see at 35", which is part of why I'd like a 27" monitor.

I've actually had it happen where I've stared at my phone for two or three hours, and I could honestly not focus my eyes closer than about 1m (3') for a while.

It's an awful feeling, but goes to show that your eye muscles are sure working hard without you really being aware.

[tp4tissue]

People have been doing their work looking at stuff held in their hands at distances of <36" forever. They’ve been reading and writing books, scrolls, clay tablets, etc. for at least 3000 years. They’ve been looking at maps, engineering diagrams, paintings, and all sorts of other stuff for nearly as long.

Yes, it takes some amount of work for your eye muscles to focus on things that are close. Yes, the closer you focus, the more your muscles need to contract. No, I wouldn’t recommend staring at a single spot 12 inches from your face for 2 hours without moving your eyes at all. But if you look around the room from time to time, giving your eye muscles a chance to relax and reset, you’re going to be just fine looking at a computer display 2–2.5 feet from your face, or even looking at your smartphone screen at 18". (I recommend putting a window with a nice view somewhere nearby; unfortunately this isn’t always possible.)

The “resting state” for vergence and/or accommodation just tells you what your eyes do if you’re not looking at anything in particular. (For instance, when you’re in the middle of fog or it’s pitch black). There’s great variation from one person to another in the resting state of the eyes. Just because your eyes naturally return to some particular focus when you aren’t focusing on anything doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at things that are closer.

If your eyes feel tired, or you start getting headaches, or you have trouble focusing close, or whatever, by all means move your screen to whatever distance improves your symptoms. But this thing about requiring a screen >36" from your face seems like bunk to me.

Some more useful advice:
- Make sure you blink enough. People who look at computer screens a lot tend to blink less than they would otherwise, and can get dry irritated eyes.
- Don’t make your screen too dim. Our eyes work much better when looking at bright stuff.
- Make sure your screen is positioned well, so you don’t stress your neck out.
- Don’t use your computer/smartphone/etc. too close to bedtime, or otherwise use too much lighting late at night. It’ll screw up your circadian rhythms.
- Get enough sleep. Sleep is really important for most parts of the body, restoring your brain, your immune system, your skin, etc., but it’s also important for eye health. People who are sleep deprived often suffer chronic eye irritation.
- Eat a healthy variety of food, to make sure you get the nutrients your eyes need.

Jacobolus.. people have been doing many things FOREVER..  but that doesn't make it right...


Resting point is not BUNK.. and while it does vary from person to person,   it doesn't vary by much. That's what an average is....  and even if say you're 2 standard deviations out, what stops you from buying the  70" sharp panels which goes on sale for $999..



It's not a REQUIREMENT.....  it's the BEST option available TO YOU..     It's been known for a long time now, that Looking at things in the distance is Less straining than looking at things close up...

But.. also for that longest of time,  we didn't have the ability to print HUGE 30 inch books,  or even recently, not everyone could afford 30" monitors.. .


The world however HAS CHANGED...  nearly everyone in 'murica can afford the 50" china panel which typically goes for $350...


GIVEN THAT... where do we start...    and that my friend brings me back to 35" 





About Brightness..   Black text upon White background is a throwback to PRINT.....   There is absolutely NO REASON to  have black on white  while using a computer screen..


Many people have already made the switch to Darkness..    Grey text on BLACK background is by far the MOST COMFORTABLE to read...   


Your IRIS , also a Muscle, can relax.. 

[jacobolus]

Here’s the most relevant link I can find in support of tp4tissue’s arguments:
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle2.htm

These guys recommend putting the display further away (especially for older folks), tilting it back so that the top of the display is further away than the bottom, and moving the display downward so that it doesn’t require looking upward to see any part of the display. (Because for nearish objects, we apparently don’t focus completely perpendicular to the eyes, but instead the plane of focus is at an angle, like you’d get by tilting the lens on a view camera, and also because we apparently can more easily focus on near objects when we are looking downward.)

http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/atwork.htm
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/dscreen.htm

[tp4tissue]

Here’s the most relevant link I can find in support of tp4tissue’s arguments:
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle2.htm

These guys recommend putting the display further away (especially for older folks), tilting it back so that the top of the display is further away than the bottom, and moving the display downward so that it doesn’t require looking upward to see any part of the display. (Because for nearish objects, we apparently don’t focus completely perpendicular to the eyes, but instead the plane of focus is at an angle, like you’d get by tilting the lens on a view camera, and also because we apparently can more easily focus on near objects when we are looking downward.)

http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/atwork.htm
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/dscreen.htm

Show Image

all this crap was made before the availability of  some key ergonomic elements..


Ergodox..

LARGE monitors

Working from home..


it's a completely different set of limitations they're working with..


Some of those things carry over..  but those archaic diagrams do not..